The Attempted Hijacking of “Science” by the Ultra Pro-Vaccine Crowd
By Sandy Gottstein
Those who unquestioningly support and promote vaccination while at the same time trivializing vaccine safety concerns have tried to co-opt science as their own private fiefdom.
But is that legitimate? And what is science, really? Is it some clear-cut, static system with hard results? Or is it an ongoing process, and one that depends on asking the right questions in the right way? Is the pro-vaccine camp right that only they understand and properly use science and its methods? Or do such notions suggest a lack of understanding about science, including its strengths and limitations, and/or a propaganda effort (e.g., by inserting the word “science” in the title of your blog) designed to camouflage the truth?
Among the varied definitions of science are the following:
Science is both a body of knowledge and a process.
Max Born (1882-1970), Nobel Prize-winning physicist,
quoted in Gerald Holton's Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought
Robert H. Dott, Jr., and Henry L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth (2nd edition)
Richard Feynman, Nobel-prize-winning physicist,
in The Pleasure of Finding Things Out
as quoted in American Scientist v. 87, p. 462 (1999)
So what are the bases of the anti-vaccine-safety camp’s assertions?
First, their declarations of vaccine safety are almost entirely based on industry-funded or influenced “science”. For them, the indisputable potential for conflict of interest to result in compromised scientific research apparently has no relevance to vaccines. While the pro-vaccine camp has made a dogma out of trivializing vaccine-safety concerns, in fact, such tarnished “science” does not disprove evidence of vaccine harm. The unreservedly pro-vaccine camp’s willingness to embrace tainted research raises more questions than it answers.
Second, their claims are based on rejecting contrary evidence, including observations of temporally- related adverse vaccine events, even those that occur within minutes or hours. It is absurd to assume that a temporally-related event cannot be causally related. In fact, under normal circumstances, it would be the first thing suspected. But vaccines are not viewed in the “normal” way.
Of course a temporal relationship alone does not alone prove anything. For starters, little is ever “proved” in science. A temporally-related event should, however, be viewed as a red flag that warrants further serious, unbiased investigation. Instead, mention of such reported relationships are often viewed as reason to humiliate the person who has reported it, rather than attempt to understand its significance, as well as to end any further discussion. The once universally shamed, but later vindicated, Semmelweis might well be considered the poster boy for what is happening in the vaccine arena. Between the unenlightened, self-interested desire to defend one’s own work and the unenlightened, self-interested desire to avoid the potential financial and political liabilities that surround the vaccine issue, there is little incentive to seek the truth about vaccines. On the other hand, there is every reason to discredit those who question their safety.
It is simply wrong to suggest that anecdotal evidence, which is based on observation, i.e., a fundamental part of scientific research, is inherently useless information. It should be a starting point and nothing less.
Moreover, the debate is often mischaracterized as pitting science against parents. A case in point is the NRP Frontline program “The Vaccine War” which falsely made it seem there were no “experts” who understood or sympathized with vaccine safety concerns. In fact, Dr. Jay Gordon spent 2 hours with them, but they did not use any of his interview. They also left out the interview of Dr. Robert Sears. Viewers were thus left with the incorrect impression that there is no real science behind vaccine safety doubts.
Third, the “evidence” in support of vaccines relies on studies that have no genuine control (non-intervention) group. Non-intervention in the case of vaccines is no vaccines, period. In studies without a control group the only thing one can conclude is that the vaccinated have the same health outcomes as the vaccinated. One can only wonder about the reasons for such a striking omission.
In the absence of incidence data among the never-vaccinated, there is simply no basis for declaring that a reported adverse reaction is merely a normal, expected event. Normal, expected among the vaccinated? Yes. Normal, expected among the never-vaccinated? Who knows?
In addition, the self-righteous hue and cry over the alleged ethics of conducting such studies should be seen for what it is: 1) an attempt to divert attention from the fact that such critical studies were never done (where is the hue and cry from them over that?) and 2) to keep such studies from ever being conducted. While not perfect, retrospective studies, using those who have chosen not to vaccinate, would be far better than nothing. If it were discovered that the never-vaccinated are healthier than the vaccinated, for whatever reasons, that would be important and useful information. We could then set about trying to understand what it is about the never-vaccinated that leads to better health results, vaccines or not.
Fourth, there is the disgraceful rejection of nearly all the evidence published in journals that supports the notion that vaccines may be causing harm. This in spite of the high hurdle such studies must surmount, given heavy funding of the journals by vaccine manufacturers , difficulty getting non-industry funding, and conflicts of interest among many of the “peers” reviewing those studies. All of this makes it extremely difficult to get a fair hearing and published.
One stark example of the rejection of published studies that challenge so-called “expert” vaccine proclamations involves thimerosal as a possible cause of autism and/or other vaccine harm. The ultra pro-vaccine crowd wants us to believe the issue has been settled, even though science is almost never “settled”. And even though there are at least 90 journal articles that clearly suggest otherwise. (They also incorrectly insist that thimerosal has been completely removed from childhood vaccines, totally ignoring the fact that many of the flu vaccines now given to children contain it, while other vaccines contain “trace amounts”, and/or that whatever amount is still left is surely not a problem. But that is another story.)
Fifth, given that most funding comes from industry, few researchers who question vaccinations receive the necessary funding. Those who support vaccination and minimize vaccine risks would have us believe the consequent absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It is not.
Ignoring, dismissing and/or failing to properly study that which contradicts the status quo may be a great way to run a business, but it is no way to conduct science. The anti-vaccine-safety crowd has some nerve making the unscientific claim that the vaccine-safety issue has been settled. It is high time for the public to stop falling for such self-serving, deceptive pronouncements.
“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” – Wendell Phillips (1811-1884), paraphrasing John Philpot Curran.
Sandy Gottstein is Editor of Vaccination News.
Well Sandy Gottstein, you hit the nail on it's head.
I hope and pray that people keep reading and open their
eyes and positive changes will happen.Our children's health
and safety is a number one priority and pharmaceutical
companies who can not meet these very high standards will
need to get out of the vaccine making business!!!
Posted by: oneVoice | October 29, 2011 at 10:27 PM
Here is what I once wrote, veritas, related to your point: The Perfect Business Plan http://bit.ly/eFKHa4
Posted by: Sandy Gottstein | October 20, 2011 at 02:55 PM
I would even go further to claim that corporate medicine is fundamentally against science. It ignores the true science, it denigrates it, it wages a war against science. And it does it with full premeditation to destroy humanity for profits.
Posted by: veritas | October 20, 2011 at 01:13 PM
Thank you, Twyla.
Posted by: Sandy Gottstein | October 19, 2011 at 11:28 AM
CMO - midwives did work on their own,separate from doctors,
they had their own ward.Midwives did not attend autopsies.
Midwives washed their hands with chlorine solution and used
alcohol to disinfect their instruments and the bowl by
lighting the alcohol on fire.Midwives had very low rates
of infection and the death rate was extremely low.This how
Dr. Semmelweis noted the differences in the outcome and started his research and making the conclusion that the
doctors were spreading the infections and death.He desperately tried to tell them wash your hands.The medical maffia had destroyed him,his life,his health,his privileges.
Not until the microscope was used and doctors learned about
bacterias and infections,that he had taken his well deserved place in medical history. A famous university named
after him in Budapest,Hungary.
Posted by: oneVoice | October 19, 2011 at 10:45 AM
Yes Veritas,that is why this is called medical fascism.Profit and corporation first with their blanket immunity(provided by pharma friendly former president Bush)and patients last.
Posted by: oneVoice | October 19, 2011 at 10:25 AM
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201110181110dowjonesdjonline000279&title=fda-warns-glaxosmithkline-on-violations-at-uk-plant
From above:-
"The FDA said the company didn't establish appropriate procedures to prevent microbiological contamination of drug products.... The warning letter also cited the company for failing to follow certain laboratory-control procedures. The FDA said it may withhold approval of new applications for new products or additional approvals of existing products until all the violations outlined in the letter are corrected."
Strange that the FDA are rigorously enforcing standards in the manufacture of medicines, but are apparently ignoring widespread contamination during manufacture of vaccines.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | October 19, 2011 at 02:17 AM
Thank you, Sandy -- lots of excellent points!
Posted by: Twyla | October 19, 2011 at 12:54 AM
A lesson from history... History usually produces the truth as those with an interest in concealing it pass from power.
About 150 years ago, a Dr. Semmelweis of Austria suggested that doctors wash their hands and change clothes between working on cadavers and assisting in the childbirth rooms of a Vienna hospital.
New mothers at the hospital were dying at a much higher rate than those who gave birth at home.
His writings & efforts were mocked, and it took medicine about an extra 50 years to learn to wash their hands.
http://www.general-anaesthesia.com/images/ignaz-semmelweis.html
Posted by: cmo | October 18, 2011 at 10:07 PM
RE: Bob
The "Vaccine War" .. is .. and .. has always been .. a war between "science and common sense".
I respectfully disagree. The "Vaccine War" .. is .. and .. has always been .. a war between industry propaganda and common sense". What they're troweling out isn't an honest inquiry into the facts surrounding what is most likely the the biggest medical disaster in human history. It's simply the the typical human reaction to discovering they're on the wrong side of the truth and realizing that life as they've known it is over as soon as they are held to account for what they've done. Hence they're strategy to avoid accountability for as long as possible. The medical world depends entirely on the public's trust. Without it the pediatricians all have to find a new line of work.
Posted by: Adam M | October 18, 2011 at 08:42 PM
The best science comes from honest observations. These days the parents, who observe and report horrific vaccine injuries in their children, are the real scientists. They are joined by a handful of brave scientists, who conduct honest research on vaccine safety and are prosecuted for that. Those, who for pharma money produce fraudulent “proofs” of vaccine safety not only cannot be called scientist , but should be called crooks and criminals, not different from famous German Nazi dr. Joseph Mengele. We have to remember that many bureaucrats “experts” at the CDC and FDA are very stupid, lacking basic science training and understanding, hence they cannot be expected to be able to do simple calculation of adding mercury doses injected infants. Yet, these people have been given the power to poison millions of innocent babies and they get ways with this crime. Somebody should prosecute them and they should rot in prisons for the rest of their life, but the government is protecting them and fighting the vaccine-injured children and their parents. This is so criminal, so wrong, so Nazi-like.
Posted by: veritas | October 18, 2011 at 08:34 PM
I don't usually expect to trade blows with Nobel Laureates over science but such happened in 2004 over the absurd remarks of microbiologist Lewis Wolpert in a venomous article in the London Evening Standard at the beginning of the "Wakefield affair". Among his statements:
"One should be suspicious of maverick scientists. With rare exceptions, they are simply wrong. The core of science is remarkably reliable, and when there are disputes it takes exceptional scientific skills to make the right judgements."
But since when was the safety of vaccines "the core of science" as opposed to "the core of public health policy": good heavens, they are even supposed to be tested.
http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7442/773.full/reply#bmj_el_65172
http://www.bmj.com/content/329/7456/0.8.full/reply#bmj_el_65659
Posted by: John Stone | October 18, 2011 at 06:01 PM
I have got to the point that it enrages me too much to listen to their Scienceblog BS. It's pretty apparent that most of them are lab workers who just want to maintain the status quo. It's particularly galling when one of them says, so offhandedly, "no one ever said vaccines don't have risks." They wouldn't even know about the risk/benefit ratio with the fox guiding the henhouse at the CDC, and uncooperative Pediatricians. Oh ya, and the crappy, unscientific studies. I just can't be bothered. May their conscience weigh heavily on them. Oh, and when they discredit Dr. Wakefield I really wish they could be forced to work with a child who is in obvious gastric/bowel distress, such as the little guy I met yesterday. He was writhing and tensing a lot, hyperventilating. He had had diarrhea the previous day).
Posted by: Jen | October 18, 2011 at 02:39 PM
Yes, Jake. Money Talks
As Children and Parents are Silenced.
Posted by: Zed | October 18, 2011 at 01:52 PM
"the Ultra Pro-Vaccine Crowd" - in other words, the vaccine industry.
Posted by: Jake Crosby | October 18, 2011 at 12:24 PM
I've just spent the past two days in a worm hole trying to reason with a rabid bunch of vaccine zombies. Please help me remember to always avoid such vile attacks on anyone suggesting that vaccines are potentially deadly...sadly, they won't understand until it happens to someone they love. I was heartened to see the recent study out of Germany, and the results were a testament to the chronic damage of current vaccine practices. Does anyone know what a study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated would cost? Theirs had 8,000 subjects (retrospectively). If we don't do it, it will never be done.
Posted by: Zed | October 18, 2011 at 09:57 AM
The "Vaccine War" has always been depicted as a war between "parents and science". Poppycock.
The "Vaccine War" .. is .. and .. has always been .. a war between "science and common sense".
Consider the fact that the United States, arguably the wealthiest, most technologically advanced nation in history .. is ranked far down the list of developed nations in "infant mortality" rates .. even though the US has the most aggressive infant vaccine schedule in the entire world.
In fact .. those nations with the best infant mortality rates .. vaccinate their children in the first year of life far less than does the United States. Whenever nations recommend comparable vaccinations as the US .. those nations join the ranks of those with the highest infant mortality rates.
While US science sees no problem .. common sense suggests something is wrong with that picture.
For instance .. what is the death rate of infants in the US from rotovirus? Common sense suggests whatever that death rate is .. the vaccine for it has done absolutely nothing to improve infant mortality rates in the United States.
Common sense also questions the wisdom of injecting children under 1 year of age with rotovirus vaccines:
Rotavirus (RotaTeq) contains: "Cell culture media, Fetal Bovine Serum, Sodium Citrate, Sodium Phosphate, Monobasic Monohydrate, Sodium Hydroxide Sucrose, Polysorbate 80"
Rotavirus (Rotarix) contains: "Amino Acids, Calcium Carbonate, Calcium Chloride, D-glucose, Dextran, Ferric (III) Nitrate, L-cystine, L-tyrosine, Magnesium Sulfate, Phenol Red, Potassium Chloride, Sodium Hydrogenocarbonate, Sodium Phosphate, Sodium L-glutamate, Sodium Pyruvate, Sorbitol, Sucrose, Vitamins, Xanthan"
(Have they figured out a way to remove "pig viruses" from rotovirus vaccines?)
Common sense suggests the American Academy of Pediatrician warning against hazardous chemicals that children under one year of age may be exposed to by "sucking, drinking or playing" with .. may not be as hazardous to their health as receiving three doses of Rotovirus vaccines in their first year of life.
But then .. that would be "common sense" .. not "science" raising that question.
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | October 18, 2011 at 09:33 AM
There has never been a study to compare vaccinated children, to completely un-vaccinated vaccinated children. If vaccinating was REALLY based on science, then conducting this study should have been the first action of the "medical experts", in response to parental claims that vaccines were injuring their children.
Actually, such a study should never have been needed at all. Because all the scientists really needed to do from the start, was produce evidence of the science that they supposedly conducted to prove the vaccines were safe ... BEFORE those vaccines were ever unleashed on the public.
It's it odd that the medical community has never been able to take the second action described above, and has adamantly refused to do the first?
Posted by: Barry | October 18, 2011 at 07:13 AM